[1] The legal nature of "agreement on compensation for losses" under the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Losses, and whether an agreement can be made to alleviate the requirements for compensation for losses under the same Act due to an agreement between the parties (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that even if there is a reservation clause of the right to cancel a contract based on mistake in the contract entered into for compensation for losses for livestock business due to the construction of a dam, if there is no indication of the legal basis for compensation for losses in the course of entering into the contract, such motive should be indicated in the process of the contract in order to be the object of cancellation as mistake in the important part of the contract

[1] The "agreement on compensation for losses" under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Use and the Compensation for Damages (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) has the nature of a private trade or private contract conducted by a public institution as a private economic entity, and can make an agreement to relax the requirements for compensation for losses under the same Act upon an agreement between the parties, and can determine the purchase price not in compliance with the criteria for compensation for losses

[2] The case holding that even if there is a reservation clause of the right to cancel a contract based on mistake in the contract entered into for compensation for losses for livestock business due to a dam construction, an error in the existence of the grounds for the compensation for losses constitutes a mistake in the so-called motive and its motive must be indicated in the process of the contract in order to be subject to cancellation as a mistake in the important part of the contract. Thus, if no indication is made as to the legal grounds for the compensation for losses in the process of concluding the contract, the contract cannot

[1] Article 3 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land for Public Works and the Compensation for Loss (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) / [2] Article 109 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3319 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1716) Supreme Court Decision 98Da2242, 2259 delivered on May 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1716), Supreme Court Decision 98Da48866 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 735) Supreme Court Decision 9Da26924 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2070)

Korea Water Resources Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

August 19, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 217,50,000 won with 5% interest per annum from December 23, 200 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 9 and Eul evidence 19 (including each number), and the whole purport of this court's on-site inspection.

A. From March 191, 191, the Defendant raised a lawsuit in three lots of land, such as the monthly 1592 Miscellaneous land 516 m2, 1595m2, 1595m2, 1597m2, 1597m2, 472m2, at the same time (hereinafter referred to as “the instant livestock industry facilities” in total referred to as “the instant land and livestock shed”), and around 200 m20.

B. Around December 200, the Defendant filed a claim with the Director of the Assistance Center for the Construction of Jeollabuk-do, Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter referred to as the “Mandatary”), who was delegated by the Plaintiff to compensate for the livestock industry in relation to the above livestock industry facilities and the livestock industry operation on the ground that “it is impossible to continue livestock industry because the housing and farmland were submerged,” and the mandatory purchased the livestock industry operation rights (other than the livestock industry operation rights (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”) from the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff at KRW 217.5 million (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”), and on December 23, 2000, the Defendant paid the above payment to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff on December 13, 2000.

C. Article 8 of the instant contract provides that “When the details of the contract are modified or excluded due to the modification or clerical error of the public facility plan, the mandatary may modify or terminate this contract, and the defendant shall comply with the measures taken by the mandatary, such as redemption and restoration to the original state, etc.” (Article 8 of the instant contract is a juristic act that has the future effect of the contract in the continuous credit relationship, and the mistake at the time of conclusion of the contract cannot be the ground of termination. Therefore, the termination under the instant provision is deemed to mean “cancellation” notwithstanding the language and text thereof; hereinafter “instant reservation clause”).

D. On January 30, 2003, through the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, through the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, an official document stating, “The Plaintiff is erroneous in the application of the relevant laws and regulations that applied to the livestock facilities owned by the Plaintiff and farmland, thus continuing to operate the livestock industry (33 heads of raising livestock) using the same livestock facilities, and thus, is fundamentally contrary to the grounds for indirect compensation, and thus, is contrary to such grounds for indirect compensation, the Plaintiff’s request for return of the compensation for livestock business by January 30, 2003,” thereby reaching the Defendant at that time.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the provisions of Articles 23-5 (Indirect Compensation for Business) and 23-6 (Indirect Compensation for Structures, etc.) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Damages (repealed by Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Special Act"), the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff can not carry on business because more than 2/3 of the surrounding area of the public project cannot carry on business due to the execution of the public project, or that the plaintiff can not cancel the contract of this case because the plaintiff's livestock facilities cannot be deemed as non-refisible as the rear area of the public project, and that the contract of this case cannot be seen as being subject to compensation for losses because the contract of this case cannot be seen as being established under the special provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation for Damages.

3. Determination

A. The nature and effect of the contract of this case

According to the above evidence and the purport of oral argument, the defendant's livestock industry does not fall under the case where the surrounding land is lost by more than 2/3 due to the construction project of a public dam (the livestock industry is not likely to be lost by more than 2/3 of the surrounding land due to construction of a public dam due to its nature). Thus, in light of the fact that there are many cases where the surrounding land is not based on the source of consumption and feed supply due to its surrounding land due to its characteristics, the contract of this case is about the structure that does not meet the indirect compensation requirements of Article 23-5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Special Act on Livestock Industry (the indirect compensation requirement of Article 23-6 of the same Act is not deemed to have been entered into by the mandatory in this case under the above provision). On the other hand, the agreement on compensation for losses under the Special Act on Livestock Industry cannot be deemed to have been concluded by the defendant's agent in this case due to the agreement between the parties concerned about the compensation for losses under private law or private law, and the agreement between the parties concerned can not be determined by 298.294.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

As seen earlier, in the instant contract, the right to cancel the contract is reserved against the Plaintiff on the ground of mistake, as well as the relevant provisions of the Civil Act apply to the instant contract. As such, the Plaintiff can cancel the instant contract where the mandatory, who is an agent, entered into the instant contract by mistake in the important part of the content of the legal act. As alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the mandatory, as argued by the Plaintiff, entered into the instant contract due to mistake as to the existence of grounds for

The mistake means that there is a disagreement between the intention expressed by the observer and the intention of internal deliberation, and that the disagreement is not aware of that disagreement, and the mistake as to the existence or absence of the grounds for compensation for loss in the contract of this case constitutes a mistake in the so-called motive. Thus, in order to be subject to cancellation as a mistake in the important part of the contract, the motive must be indicated in the process of the contract. According to the above facts and evidence, in the process of the agreement with the defendant and the conclusion of the contract of this case, the mandatory did not display any indication as to the legal basis for the compensation for loss, such as Article 23-5 of the Special Act on the Law on the Law of Public Officials, and thus, it cannot be seen that the mandatory did not conclude the contract of this case because it is judged that the defendant's livestock business right constitutes the criteria for the compensation for loss under Article 23-5 of the Special Act on the Law on the Law of Public Officials, as seen below, the mandatory did not have concluded the contract of this case on the ground of the above mistake or omission.

On the other hand, as alleged by the plaintiff, the mandatory has judged that the defendant's livestock business right is reasonable to the criteria for compensation for losses under Article 23-5 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes or factual relations, and the conclusion of the contract of this case was made. Even when it is assumed that such mistake constitutes a mistake as to the important part of the juristic act, in light of the general characteristics of the livestock industry as seen above, it can be seen easily from the perspective of ordinary people that the plaintiff's livestock business does not fall under "where at least 2/3 of the 2/3 or more of the 2/3 or more of the 3 or more of the 3th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 20th or more of the 3th or more of the 3th or more of the 20th or more reasons.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of this case premised on the cancellation of the contract of this case is without merit.

Judges Jeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)